Do you shoot wide open?

shaylou

shaylou

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,781
Name
Shayne
Edit My Images
No
I was just wondering if it's just me or do others stay away from shooting wide open. I have 24-70 mrkII, 70-200- f2.8mrkII, 100mm 2.8mrkII. on a 5dmrkIII. I just do not like how soft the shots are when the lens is wide open. There are times when I wish I could open up the lens but don't dare because I don't want to lose the shot. I must say that I do not spend much time at all doing post work. Just the basic adjustments and clean up. Maybe if I knew more about post work (and wanted to do it) I could clean the shots up more enabling me to shot wide open. What are your thoughts?
 
Those lenses are capable of perfectly good results wide open.

As with all things in life, there is a balance, of course even the best lenses benefit from being stopped down, but they are definitely 'sharp enough' wide open.
 
Generally, yes. I'd buy cheaper lenses if I didn't.

That said, it's not too often I'll shoot at 2.8 on my 24-70, slightly more likely to on the 70-200 (both mark 1 versions). The 24-70 sharpens up a lot when it's stopped down even a little bit. It's the things I shoot though that dictate the aperture; if I need to shoot at 2.8 then I will.

Actually, thinking about it, I do shoot a fair bit at 2.8 on the 24-70 for detail shots at events, just not for people very often.

85 1.2 I shoot wide open or very close to it all the time, that's why I paid so much cash for it.

EDIT to add: your mark 2 lenses should be more than good enough for practically any purpose wide open.
 
You can't bring back sharpness/focus in post. Looking at your lens collection, they are all reputed to be among Canon's sharpest even wide open - and many would not hesitate to use them wide open. I can only speak from personal experience on the 100L macro - that was as sharp as they get wide open.

Perhaps plug a few variables in to a depth of field calculator, so you can see roughly what you have to play with in terms of DoF at relative focal lengths and apertures. But at f2.8 you have a little more to play with than say the 135 f2L and considerably more than the 85 1.2L - both of which many folk use wide open.

Finally, it's possible you may need to dial in some MA, or your body may need to be calibrated, if all those reputedly sharp-wide-open lenses are a little soft wide open. Of course I won't go into shutter speeds and camera shake as I assume you would have eliminated that possibility.
 
Last edited:
I pretty much always shoot as wide open as I can.
It's an aesthetic choice for me, I like ultra shallow depth of field. I would take a beautiful picture over razor sharpness any day. However I find with my 5DMkII and the old 100mm macro and the same 70-200mm that the camera/lens is more than sharp enough for me wide open, sometimes having to dial it back softer in post processing.

If you're not getting sharp results with all that gear, I'd be looking to see if your technique is lacking somewhere.
 
A lot. Mostly because of the light, but not always as I do like shallow DOF.
Also it can be a better alternative to shooting at maximum ISO and/or having unwanted subject or camera movement.

The main reason I get soft images is mostly due to my error when shooting, however not all my lenses perform "ok" wide open.
 
Last edited:
It depends.

Sometimes I'll shoot wide open deliberately to achieve the dof I'm after.

Sometimes I'll stop down a bit for the IQ

Sometimes I'll stop down for greater dof

Sometimes I'll have no option to shoot wide open as I've maxed out my ISO and can't get the required shutter speed with anything else given the lack of available light.
 
Last edited:
shaylou said:
I was just wondering if it's just me or do others stay away from shooting wide open. I have 24-70 mrkII, 70-200- f2.8mrkII, 100mm 2.8mrkII. on a 5dmrkIII. I just do not like how soft the shots are when the lens is wide open. There are times when I wish I could open up the lens but don't dare because I don't want to lose the shot. I must say that I do not spend much time at all doing post work. Just the basic adjustments and clean up. Maybe if I knew more about post work (and wanted to do it) I could clean the shots up more enabling me to shot wide open. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

My thoughts you either have .......a calibration problem wiht your camera because you should be able to get sharp pics wiht those lens.. I only have the 70-200mkII out of your list and I am forced to shoot wide open for my work..my pics are sharp....on a par with my 135m prime...The reputation of the others would suggest the same... Or your missing focus by shooting badly.
 
With the combination of that body and those lenses, especially the 70-200 & 100 you should get lovely sharp images wide open. I have both those on a 5D3 and happily shoot wide open and if the image is soft its my poor technique.

Maybe as suggested a bit of tweaking on MA would help. Also what focus set up are you using. Single, expanded?

If you're consistently getting soft results from all 3 lenses then I would do a little bit of work with them set up on a tripod to try and eliminate any movement by you in the set up. IS off, single point and see what you get.

Cheers
 
I do focus stacking, and only shoot at the aperture that the lens has its best performance at - this is usually stopped down a little
 
It varies I think. I'm well past the shoot-everything-wide-open-for-AMAZING-bokeh stage........ << I'm not saying you are at that stage btw ;)

My 100mm macro I will happily shoot wide open. The 135L I'll happily shoot wide open or up to f/2.8. The 50/1.4 I have & if I HAVE to then I will but I not only find it sharper at f/2 but also it's a nicer amount of DOF esp for portraits & the like.... The 17-40L is NEVER wide open!!

You need to know the gear & how it works & what you want etc but the gear you have should be producing the results wide open though.
 
Rarely - I'm not a fan of ultra shallow DoF. When necessary though, I'll go wide open although apart from the 50mm, I don't have very fast lenses these days. (I had a look back at my favourite shots and realised that I very rarely went bigger than f/4 so to reduce the weight in my SLR bag, I went for the 24-120 f/4 and the 70-300 VR rather than a pair of Sigma f/2.8s.
I'm more likely to go wide open when using the baby Fuji Xs since their small sensors give greater DoF even at f/1.8 (at 25mm [EFL] on the XF-1).
 
I love shooting wide open, especially with primes. I just love the look it gives. Of course, it's not always appropriate and it is easier to miss shots at F1.2 or F1.4, but when you nail them, it's worth it IMO.
 
It all depends! I have the 70-200 II as well and find it's my performance rather than the lens that limits sharpness!

I find myself using the 70-200 more and more for landscapes where I often stop it down quite a bit, and due to budget limitations it's also my portrait lens, often used wide open.

I try not to use my 24-205 wide open but the results are more than acceptable if I do.

Darren
 
I shoot wide open, quite a bit. Large areas of the image may be out of the DoF but something will be in and pretty sharp and I'd only really have reservations with a couple of lenses in strong light with backlit things.
 
I'm over it too. Most of my shooting these days relys on creative us of light to create drama rather than narrow DOF. Plus I don't have that kind of kit any more. :)
 
I very rarely shoot wide open,then it's mainly down to being pushed into it by low light,and I can't get the ISO higher anymore.
Sometime an narrow dof is right for a photo,but not all the time :)
 
I shoot my 70-200 f/2.8L IS wide-open (or near wide-open) most of the time I use it. That's what fast glass is for after all!
 
I shoot wide open if I need a shallow dof - I often wonder how many alledgedly soft shots are actually a result of the small dof wide open and people missing focus.

That said I would take issue with eds post above - the main benefit of fast glass for me is focusing in low light, its not shooting wide open which isn't always appropriate to the situation
 
Only when I need to for whatever reason.
If all of your lenses are "soft" wide open there's a huge chance it's technique/situation/or a gear issue... assuming you have that level of gear because you know how to use it/need it, I'd go with a gear issue.
There are not many lens body combinations in my kit that do not benefit from some AFMA.... some combinations are horrid.
My 400 f/2.8 +TC requires +18 on the D800 (and still kind of sucks) where it requires 0 on the D4 (and is quite usable)....that's the only one I know the settings for offhand. I've sent both bodies and a few lenses in for adjustment, but unless they are adjusted as a set (lens to a body) it may not make much difference. And if they are tuned together, it can make it worse for other combinations...
 
Eddzz!! said:
I shoot my 70-200 f/2.8L IS wide-open (or near wide-open) most of the time I use it. That's what fast glass is for after all!
Click to expand...

Sorry but that show a complete misunderstanding of DOF,you should be shooting for what DOF you want in your photos.
You might as well say my car go up to 100mph,so I will drive at that speed all the time :eek:
 
Not all the time, but when I need it, I do. Particularly with the 85 f1.4 and the 70-200 f2.8 VR
 
If I want/need to shoot wide open, I do.

It's a ridiculous statement that a 24-70 2.8 Mk2 has any part of its range that isn't more than usable.
 
simonblue said:
Sorry but that show a complete misunderstanding of DOF,you should be shooting for what DOF you want in your photos.
You might as well say my car go up to 100mph,so I will drive at that speed all the time :eek:
Click to expand...

Sports/Wildlife photography. Shutter speed becomes more important that DOF. What a 70-200 is probably most used for.
 
simonblue said:
Sorry but that show a complete misunderstanding of DOF,you should be shooting for what DOF you want in your photos.
You might as well say my car go up to 100mph,so I will drive at that speed all the time :eek:
Click to expand...

Not really. If you didn't need the fast aperture, then you could save yourself the money and weight by buying a slower equivalent lens; so you could argue that that is exactly what fast lenses are for. Also, I shoot in the dark 95% of the time, choosing depth of field isn't a luxury I have too often.
 
Jayst84 said:
Not really. If you didn't need the fast aperture, then you could save yourself the money and weight by buying a slower equivalent lens; so you could argue that that is exactly what fast lenses are for. .
Click to expand...

nope - as I said above the main benefit of fast glass is for focusing in low light , when I'm shooting n churches for example I rarely use f2.8 because the dof is too thin - I'd prefer to turn the iso up to get a decent shutter speed at f5.6 , but the benefit of an f2.8 is that it will focus even when there isn't a lot of light
 
simonblue said:
Sorry but that show a complete misunderstanding of DOF,you should be shooting for what DOF you want in your photos.
You might as well say my car go up to 100mph,so I will drive at that speed all the time :eek:
Click to expand...

I fully understand depth of field and the affect a variable aperture has on it. Beside DoF, I open up my aperture when I need more light to hit the sensor. I would rather shoot wide-open than bump my ISO into uncomfortable territory. I would more often than not restrict this use of my aperture to a long zoom lens like the 70-200 when the affect on DOF at a wide-aperture is less present than if I shot with a prime at close proximity. I also use large apertures to isolate my subjects. It's what makes the 70-200 f/2.8 such a good lens for stage photography.
 
big soft moose said:
nope - as I said above the main benefit of fast glass is for focusing in low light , when I'm shooting n churches for example I rarely use f2.8 because the dof is too thin - I'd prefer to turn the iso up to get a decent shutter speed at f5.6 , but the benefit of an f2.8 is that it will focus even when there isn't a lot of light
Click to expand...

For you. For me, the benefit is more light hitting the sensor, followed by focussing ability and a shallow depth of field to isolate subjects. I certainly didn't buy that 85 1.2 for its focussing ability. :D
 
grotty said:
Finally, it's possible you may need to dial in some MA, or your body may need to be calibrated, if all those reputedly sharp-wide-open lenses are a little soft wide open.
Click to expand...

I had a 70-200 2.8 (mark I mind you!) on a 50D and after doing some research made some in-camera micro adjustments. It made a significant difference shooting at 2.8. Just going through the tests made sure it was a lens issue and not the aforementioned camera shake/focus point off.

In terms of using the widest aperture, I tend to use it when I want it creatively. I've had some "wide open" days where I'll set the aperture to the widest and force myself to think differently. I spent years thinking that landscapes always had to be f8-11!

Ian
 
Digitalize said:
Sports/Wildlife photography. Shutter speed becomes more important that DOF. What a 70-200 is probably most used for.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree in some way,but look at the work of Fran's Lansing he shoot a lot of wildlife with wide angle,to get a really large dof.
 
I shoot wide when I have to - i.e. when the lighting is poor. Normally when my lens is a f1.8, I tend to just normally shoot at f2.8 just to be on the safe side, but I haven't really had any problems shooting wide open.
 
The23rdman said:
I'm over it too. Most of my shooting these days relys on creative us of light to create drama rather than narrow DOF. Plus I don't have that kind of kit any more. :)
Click to expand...

Using wide apertures is creative rather than being strictly shallow DoF.
 
Eddzz!! said:
I fully understand depth of field and the affect a variable aperture has on it. Beside DoF, I open up my aperture when I need more light to hit the sensor. I would rather shoot wide-open than bump my ISO into uncomfortable territory. I would more often than not restrict this use of my aperture to a long zoom lens like the 70-200 when the affect on DOF at a wide-aperture is less present than if I shot with a prime at close proximity. I also use large apertures to isolate my subjects. It's what makes the 70-200 f/2.8 such a good lens for stage photography.
Click to expand...

Fair enough its i just don't think an large aperture lens is just for using at its largest aperture,more it give me the range to shoot at an aperture i need.
Yes its great to isolate a subject and if the light falls but their no reason to stop it down if you need a bit more dof :)
 
If I didn't need or want to shoot at f/2.8 I'd get all f/4 glass saving a tone of money. Landscape would be one example, where wide open is not best, but with a notable exception of astro work. Portrait and weddings will more likely be wide open. I plain hate f/11 look to start with (unless it is a very clean studio portrait). There is no reason why these shots need to look soft where the subject is in accurate focus.
 
If you're not getting sharp results with all that gear, I'd be looking to see if your technique is lacking somewhere.[/quote]

Just to clarify, my shots are pretty sharp wide open but I guess I prefer razor sharp when it comes to people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top